The Great Moment (Preston Sturges, 1944)

The Great Moment was the last of the Preston Sturges Universal run, and it was the film that managed to sink his career when he was on a high. There were fights with the studio, the film was shelved for quite a while, and it ruined Sturges reputation. It’s very sad, but also easy to see why, as the film is really poor, especially compared to his previous outings. It has much of the cast that Sturges used, but the film itself is structured very poorly and the story is mediocre, despite having some potential. The acting is from ok to just bad, and the characterization is poor.

The story is based on the real story of a dentist who discovers and invents anesthesia, but suffers because of it. It’s an interesting premise, where the dentist, Morton, is in some quarters lauded and praised for his discovery, while others criticize and ridicule him, either because they are jealous or because they somehow took part in the discovery and want to be part of the claim. In the end it ends very badly for Morton, as he loses everything. I shouldn’t say “by the end”, because this is how the film starts, showing us the fall from grace that he suffered, before flashing back in time to show how this came to be in the first place. The problem is that the story is told in a very tedious way, it’s actually very boring. A lot of the drama falls flat because of Joel McCrea, who while suited for Sturges comedy, doesn’t really work here. Sturges doesn’t handle the dramatics as well as one would think he could, and the structure of the film seems very muddled. Actually it’s almost ironic considering the premonition Sturges himself made in Sullivan’s Travels. Apparently this film was going to be his greatest, but it turned out so badly. One could say that the studio destroyed something as well, but there are little signs in this film of any real potential. As I said, the story has some potential but the execution is very bad.

Another problem with this “drama” is that there are indeed some comedic moments, but they really and truly fall flat and are unfunny. Because of the tone and the style of the film, the comedic just seems silly, particularly one painful slap-stick moment which is completely out of sync with the rest of the film. It seems that Sturges could make comedies with drama, but not dramas with comedy. The character progression is very sub-par compared to how Sturges works his characters in his other films, and overall I felt the film lacked the Sturges “touch”. The film is one very few would watch if it wasn’t for the fact that it was made by Sturges. The only real significance the film has is as some sort of historic document. Anyone interested in Sturges from a historical studies viewpoint should watch the film, as it is quite an astounding fall from grace. Other than being of historic interest, any regular viewer should avoid this film, and rather watch Sturges’ excellent comedy run for Universal, as these films offer so much more than The Great Moment.

The Great Moment isn’t completely BAD, it just is very mediocre. It has very little to offer in terms of comedy, drama, satire or entertainment. It’s sad that Sturges ended his Universal career like this, and while he made a few films afterwards, he never quite recovered from this bomb. Strange how a career can so quickly loop downwards.

Hail the Conquering Hero (Preston Sturges, 1944)

I think that perhaps Hail the Conquering Hero is Sturges’ funniest movie, at least of the ones that I’ve seen. It’s a brilliant exercise of panicky slap-stick comedy and stinging satire. Like all his films, it’s satirical about America, but this time it focuses on hero worshiping and the illusion of heroism, as a small town is caught in the rage of celebrating their local hero. It’s about being caught in madness and hype, something that is still relevant in today’s world.

Woodrow is our protagonist and he is depressed. He’s hanging out at bars and drinking because he can’t go back home. The reason for this is that a year ago he signed up to join the Marines, only to be rejected because he has hay fewer. His father was a Marine and killed in the war when Woodrow was just an infant, and he doesn’t dare return to the shame of not having lived up to his father’s memory, so he pretends that he did join the Marines and sends his mother letters where he lies about it. One night he meets up with a group of real Marines who have leave. However, they are all broke and don’t quite know what to do with their time. However one of them is fixated on mothers because he never had one, and is infuriated at Woodrow for not having gone back to his yet. So the Marines get an idea; how about lending Woodrow one of their uniforms and going back with him pretending he was in the war, but released because of an injury. Perfect! So they all take him back to his small hometown. This is of course against his own will, as Woodrow sees the many faults that this plan could have, but they drag him along anyway. This is one of the comedic highlights of the films, and Eddie Bracken is perfect as the mumbling and unwilling Woodrow, who is extremely upset about the situation and fears being found out. However they assure him that they will be as discreet as possible, and only visit his mother for a few days, then leave.

Of course, it doesn’t quite work out like that. One of the funniest scenes is when the train Woodrow and his Marine pals are approaching the station, and the whole town has turned up, with banners and four different bands nonetheless. Mass hysteria hits the town as they want to greet their homecoming hero, including the mayor being ready with a speech and the key to the city. Woodrow’s old flame is also there, although she is engaged to another man, as Woodrow in one of his letters lied about being in love with someone else, and urging her to move on. What makes this film so funny is the juxtaposition of Woodrow’s reluctance and fear with the hysteria of the townspeople, creating many great situations. It doesn’t get any better, as soon some serious political figures in the town start thinking that Woodrow with his “charisma” and “heroism” would make a great new major, as the election is just a few days away. And Woodrow just gets dragged in deeper and deeper. Having been made during the Second World War, Sturges is quite brave to hit this particular nerve for satire. It’s a testament to how independent and sharp Sturges had become, and the film captures the American idyllic hero worshiping at its worst, clearly unraveling how ridiculous this had become by that time. It poked fun at something very central, and I would imagine hadn’t it been for the excellent humor this film would have been seen in a much more critical and controversial light. But what’s great about Sturges’ comedy is that it doesn’t take away from the satire, but strongly adds to it.

Hail the Conquering Hero is a very, very funny film. It hits all the right notes and also works extremely well as a satire of Americana, which becomes even funnier and clearer today. It’s a testament to the strength of Sturges’ filmmaking that his films manage to stay so fresh and the issues they deal with are still relevant, even more so, today. But he captured a particular spirit of the time, and for that, we should hail him.

The Palm Beach Story (Preston Sturges, 1942)

Now here’s an interesting little film that Preston Sturges made. It’s a romantic comedy/screwball comedy, but in a very impressive way, as it almost works as a commentary on the genre, and it certainly shows the depth and talent of Sturges. In many ways I find it the most fascinating of Sturges’ films, although it’s not among his best, certainly not The Lady Eve and Sullivan’s Travels. Still, it’s an essential part of the Sturges canon, and a fascinating little film that should be studied.

The story is fairly simple: Gerry and Tom are married, but poor. Tom has a brilliant idea that could make him rich, but he needs a load of cash to get the project underway. So Gerry decides to divorce Tom so that she can marry a rich man and get him the money. It’s a fascinating idea where two people are getting divorced, not out of hate, but out of love. Of course Tom isn’t too thrilled about the idea and tries to stop her. Gerry figures out that she has to go to Palm Beach to get the divorce, so a sort of a chase is on. He says she can never get there without any money, but she thinks she can. There’s a great scene where she wants to get on a train to Palm Beach, and does so by flirting with the gatekeeper and some of the passengers, and gets her own room for the trip, while Tom gets chased out of the train station by the guards as she says he “wants to molest me”. Hilarious. While overall not Sturges’ funniest film, it does have one of the funniest moments in any Sturges film, although it is somewhat controversial, at least it seems so from the comments on IMDb. Gerry gets lodging with a bunch of rich gun & hunting enthusiasts, and during the evening when they are getting quite drunk, things get out of hand and they grab their guns and start shooting wildly; inside the carriage! Besides being truly funny, it’s also an interesting early criticism of the liberal gun laws in the US.

On the way to Palm Beach Gerry meets a shy millionaire, who of course falls in love with her. She takes advantage and accepts his proposal to stay with him for a while at his house in Palm Beach. But when they arrive there Tom has gotten ahead of her and is waiting, where she presents him as her brother. Another character who joins the fold is the “loose” Princess Centimillia, who immediately falls for Tom. She is played by Mary Astor, who is without a doubt the funniest person in the film, she is simply wonderful. It all opens up for a funny and interesting final act. One thing I should mention is that this film has one of the truly most bizarre endings I’ve ever seen. I won’t spoil the ending, but I will say that it’s connected to the equally bizarre opening, which at first seems to have little connection to the film itself. It’s one of the things that make the film really interesting. There are a lot of set pieces and characters that are hilarious in this movie that I haven’t mentioned yet, but it all goes to show how much Preston Sturges’ films have to offer. What he does so wonderfully with his central cast of characters that he uses over and over again is that he adds a lot of flavor to his films, every minor character has something funny to say or has some small quirk, and this is one of the things that make his films remarkable and funny. I will say that Joel McCrea is really underrated in Sturges’ films. He may not have the greatest dramatic range, but his dead pan seriousness is perfect for the kind of comedy that Sturges works with, and the two are a perfect match.

The Palm Beach Story is fascinating in its own rights, and truly an interesting and unique film in the works of Preston Sturges. I feel that even though all of Preston Sturges’ films have something in common, they all also have their own unique identities and themes that separate them. That’s what’s impressive about Sturges, is that although he has his own unique style, he also managed to make several interesting films without repeating the trick, and instead incorporated his style into several very different films, as well as use the cast over and over again without anyone seeming tired or boring.

Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturges, 1941)

Sullivan’s Travels is perhaps Sturges most accomplished film, it’s a meta-film like Sunset Boulevard but more like 8 ½. It’s also one of Sturges’ most engaging and funny films, with an excellent script and the wonderful cast that he used several times and of course the wonderful Veronica Lake. It is in a way strangely structured but it works really well for the overall theme and story of the film.

The story mirrors Preston Sturges own life. The story follows a very successful director who is tired of making comedy hits, and instead wants to make a film that is more important, that makes a grand statement about the human condition, and that can educated the public. His producers aren’t too happy about this and try to persuade him it’s a bad idea. They tell him that he can’t make such a film, because he doesn’t know what it’s like to be part of the downtrodden and poor, and he only knows his own life. The director, Sullivan, agrees with this and thus decides to go out and live like a hobo for as long as necessary, again infuriating his producers, but Sullivan now has his mind set on going. So begins Sullivan’s travels, where he dresses up like a hobo (or what he perceives to be a hobo) and tries to live with the poor. However it turns out to be more difficult than he imagined, as he always ends up back in Hollywood and back at his huge mansion. Early on he meets a failed actress at a diner, the character played by Veronica Lake, and his directorial senses kick in, as he sees something in her, while she just assumes he’s a hobo. However he can’t really hide who he is, and she soon finds out who he really is and decides to go on his little adventure along with him.

What follows is a series of events where the two set out, but eventually end up back in comfort each time, failing to in any significant way to learn to live like the poor. But Sullivan is set on his goal, and the two keep on trying. I won’t reveal anymore of the story, as there are some excellent twists and turns to come later. The film is hilarious, working with slap-stick, brilliant dialogue and situations. There’s particularly an early sequence where Sullivan tries to evade a trailer that is following him everywhere (on the studio’s orders), and what follows is a riotous chase scene, where the trailer takes some significant damage. The dialogue is extremely sharp and witty, perhaps not to the same level as The Lady Eve, but it’s still excellent, and very funny. Even the opening scene where Sullivan discusses his art with the two buffoon producers is an early indication of what we’re about to get. As a reflection on Sturges and Hollywood itself, the film works as a really neat look into Hollywood of the time, and also what Sturges felt Hollywood was all about and why he did what he did. More so than any of Sturges’ film, Sullivan’s Travels really showcased why Sturges was such a unique filmmaker of his time.

Sullivan’s Travels, along with The Lady Eve, is the very best of what Sturges oeuvre had to offer. In terms of structure and creating a Meta universe Sullivan’s Travels is easily Sturges most impressive and interesting. The character arc particularly is very fascinating and shows how the director comes to realize what his craft and art is all about, and I wonder if Sturges used this film himself as therapy to his own art.

Christmas in July (Preston Sturges, 1940)

Christmas in July is another Preston Sturges comedy which also at times poses as a drama. It’s again a simple but heart-warming story, filled with wit and satire. It’s probably one of Sturges’ simplest films, and thus probably one of his least impressive. Still, it’s a neat little film which is really worth watching.

Jimmy MacDonald is a simple worker, who has a wonderful girlfriend, but he doesn’t have too much money and he dreams of bigger things. There is a competition from a coffee corporation where the person who comes up with the best commercial slogan wins a cash price of $50 000. So of course he wants it badly. However, the jury is stuck on their decision, and the announcement of the winner is postponed. Meanwhile, some of his working chumps decide to play a trick on him. They write a letter saying he is the winner of the big cash price, and he is easily fooled by this. What ensues is a chaos of misunderstandings and dramatic irony. The comedy works superbly on many levels. Few people in the film except the audience know what is really going on, making most of the cast look quite foolish. But we also worry about the protagonist, seeing the inevitable crushing disappointment when he eventually finds out it was all a big joke. We feel bad for the protagonist when he thinks he has won a huge cash price and goes nuts, but at the same time we can’t help but laugh at the predicament.

The film is also satirical, poking fun at American hysteria of the time and the search for wealth that is so predominant in the American psyche. But there is also a strong ring of truth in the film, and all the characters seem like real people with real goals, and not just caricatures. In the film’s most hilarious moments they might seem like such, but in the end these are deeply true issues, at least for the times. There are fun moments such as when the protagonist and his girlfriend goes on a shopping spree with his new earned money, or the quarrels between the upper stairs coffee corporation bureaucrats. The film ends on a somewhat ambiguous note, where the film shows us that we shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, but at the same time there is hope. I guess the theme of the film is that you shouldn’t put your hopes too much on a lottery, but trust your own skills and instincts to make something of yourself. It’s not bleak, but more of a cautionary tale.

I enjoyed Christmas in July, it’s a funny film that can bring your spirit up without being a complete feel good happy sell out. At its core it’s a frightening realistic film with some harsh truths about the world, but most importantly, it’s a very funny comedy with some great performances.

The Great McGinty (Preston Sturges, 1940)

The Great McGinty was the first of a series of films written and directed by Preston Sturges for Universal. After having written several successful films, Sturges managed to convince the studio to let him be Writer/Director on his next picture, something almost unheard of during that time in Hollywood. Sturges great run of films for Universal only ran for about four year, but in that time he carved an excellent body of work for which he is still fondly remembered today. Sturges had a lot of control over his own projects, and was able to create his own storytelling technique and personal stamp. The Great McGinty was the first in these series of films.

The story concerns Dan McGinty, a tough bum who lives on the streets, with only his name and no money. The film covers an impressive amount of time, where McGinty rises from bum to the Governor of the state, grabbing opportunities that comes him by. The film is essentially a political satire and comedy, showing how much of the inner workings of politics work. McGinty is played by Brian Donlevy, who does an excellent job. At first he seems like a fairly one-sided character, but as the film progresses so does the protagonist, and by the end he is almost unrecognizable from the person he was in the beginning, it’s a great character arc. What the film and its director do very well is creating a very engaging story that develops efficiently, and a main character through his brutal honesty is very easy to root for. There’s also a love interest, of course, but it doesn’t start quite like that. Initially the two are married in a scam marriage so McGinty can portray himself as a family man to the public, but as the story progresses they both start to fall in love with each other, although McGinty struggles at first to realize this, as he has to soften his tough exterior.

While McGinty grabs every opportunity he gets, he is not in control. He answers to the local mob boss, simply referred to as The Boss. They’re relationship is interesting, as they both hate each other from start to finish, yet both need each other to succeed. It’s both a humorous and volatile relationship. McGinty doesn’t have any moral compass or fears doing anything that might be considered wrong, but throughout the film he starts to build up a conscience, with no little influence from his wife. As a politician he is very much a man who impresses with big projects, but doesn’t really care for “the little guy”. However he soon starts to see the errors of his ways. For a film that is less than 80 minutes, the film really has an epic time span and character arc that really convincingly transforms the character. It’s really fascinating to see the journey that McGinty goes through, and the film arrives at a satisfactory, although not particularly happy, ending. Sturges visual style is simple but effective, and it is impressive how quickly and effectively he manages to tell the story.

The Great McGinty is an excellent first effort from Sturges as a writer/director. The story is simple yet epic. The characters are interesting and the humor is spot on. It’s a great political satire akin to Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but with less sentimentality and more sting. It also boasts some of the ensemble cast that would become a standard fare in all of Preston Sturges films.

Diner (Barry Levinson, 1982)

There are some films you just love to watch because they are so pleasurable in a way only you can relate to. This is what I felt about Diner, anyway. It’s a film that takes us back to those much simpler times of America, the late 50s, where everyone has a groovy car, the youth culture of the 60s still seem millions of years away, and the sweet tunes of Frank Sinatra filled the airwaves. I love this time period on film, and it was particularly well portrayed in American Graffiti. Diner also has this, although somewhat more tunes down. But what else does it have, besides a bit of classic Americana? There are actually quite interesting characters in this film, and it is a wonderful collaboration of some talented actors and fine directing.

This is the kind of films that Hollywood should make, although sadly they don’t anymore. It is a fairly low-key piece, but with some wonderful characterizations and performances, as well as entertaining scenes of the guys just hanging out. Most of the cast weren’t that famous when this film was made, but have gone on to become big names, such as Steve Guttenberg, Daniel Stern, Mikey Rourke (Jesus Christ, he looks absolutely nothing like he does in The Wrestler, talk about aging badly) and Kevin Bacon. The cast does a wonderful job as the film jumps between their different stories and problems. In a way it’s a coming of age story, or a “get off your ass and come of age” story. All the characters are on the edge of being youngsters and adulthood, one is married and one is getting married. They all love to relax at the local diner, where they more often than not spend their time, just chatting and wasting their time. Despite its set up, the film manages really well to avoid melodramatics and emotionalism. One good example is the Eddie character who is getting married. Although he likes his fiancé, he will only marry her on the condition that she passes a quiz on sports that he has devised, and it’s quite a grueling one as well. The characters are trapper between the infantile and adulthood, and the film captures this quite wonderfully. Another example is the character Shrevie, who goes mental when he finds out his wife has somewhat mixed up his tightly organized collection of records, to the point that she starts crying and contemplates cheating on him. At the end the character’s don’t really achieve any sort of conclusion, so the film is more like a slice of life film, but wonderfully convoluted in its own right.

The film does really well in dramatizing and characterizing the characters, so by the end you truly feel like you know these people. The most interesting character for me was Bacon’s character, Fenwick, who is quite possibly mad, but also some sort of quiz genius. He is the most “lost” of all the characters, and his story arc is left the most open, there doesn’t really seem to be much to hope for in his character. Yet all these characters live through their life with the support of each other, but as I said, the film wonderfully avoids sentimentalism. There isn’t any hugging or “I love ya man”, but a strong fundamental male bond between these characters, and it’s one of the things that really gives the film its quality. The film is also really well paced, exploring each of the characters stories in its own time, dwelling on their problems and issues. It takes a sit back, and just explores the lives of the characters. In this fast paced modern world of hyper block buster films, I found it incredibly refreshing. But all the emotional scenes are handled extremely classy, and the observations are captured with a sense of joy and discovery, and it really does make the films world come alive vividly. The time period is captured really well, although I would say that American Graffiti captured it even better. But Diner is an important film, it’s a film where you can kick back and enjoy, but it’s just not a popcorn film, but has more depth to it. The end, while not overall positive, leaves you with a warm feeling. There might be uncertainty in the future, but there’s always the brightness of friendship and closeness.

I thoroughly enjoyed Diner. It’s a fine film and a character piece, exploring the lives of five young men in crisis. It has great moments and dialogue, and most importantly, when it is over you will truly know its characters, and feel like you’ve been close to them. It’s a positive film, overall, but the ending and message is more complex than that. It could be compared to American Graffiti, but I would characterize Diner as American Graffiti’s older and somewhat more sophisticated cousin. However, both are great movies.

My Dinner with Andre (Louis Malle, 1981)

My Dinner with Andre is famous for being a film just about two guys sitting and talking in a restaurant. And this is true, for about 100 minutes it’s just conversation at the table, nothing else. It’s an interesting concept, and of course Louis Malle is an excellent director, but does it work? Does the film manage to create a meaning and story even though it has such limited range? Or is it just a pretentious experiment that doesn’t really hold any value in cinema?

The set up is simple enough; a failing playwright is invited to dinner by his estranged friend Andre, who used to be a very successful theatre director. The two primary cast members are Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, both playing fictionalized versions of themselves. At first it’s a though movie to take, the camera is fixed on Andre as he talks about his recent exploits. However, after 20 or 30 minutes it really starts to drag you in, almost in a hypnotic way. In the beginning I was watching the timer, but at the end it felt as if it was over in no time. The audience becomes very much a part of the conversation; we share the perspective of Wallace, who does most of the listening, although towards the end he has a couple of things to say for himself. The film touches upon issues of how society works and the masks we wear. Do we really live our lives in a real way? The film forces the audience to confront these issues, although Andre can sound a bit high and mighty at times. Wallace very much grounds us down, emphasizing the little things in life that have value.

Both cast members do a good job, although there isn’t really that much dramatic material to deal with. The conflict works on a very intellectual level, but there’s definitely some conflict there between the two, although it’s all quite polite. Louis Malle was the director and I can see the challenge in the project that might have drawn him to it. However, he does a fine job, keeping it simple and slick. The atmosphere in the restaurant, although subdued in the background, adds a decent layer to the film and the issues that are being talked about. By the end it feels like time has stopped and is suddenly started again, when the characters realize that the once full restaurant is now empty. The film leaves you with a taste, a pondering. This is where I find the major strength of the film lies. You leave the film feeling richer or perhaps poorer and despairing, depending on your point of view. It’s an intimate conversation about deep human emotions, and we’re allowed to see it all. It’s not just a question of audiences listening, but we also have to participate, giving our own mental notes and discerning what really is behind the character of Andre. It might drag in the beginning, but at the end it works marvelously well.

Whether or not someone likes My Dinner with Andre is purely a matter of taste. There is certainly something to be had here, and many will find it a wonderful movie, but if you decide to turn it off in the first 20 minutes and never pay the film any mind ever again, I would certainly not hold it against you.

Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)

My feelings towards films that rely too much on their dialogue is somewhat ambiguous. I love films that can create meaning and story through their visuals, and don’t rely on dialogue to hammer in to the audience what it is about. Glengarry Glen Ross was based on a play written by David Mamet, and he himself wrote the film adaptation. It does come across that the film has its roots in theatre. There are only two major locations throughout most of the film, its dialogue heavy, and has a particular kind of dialogue. Still, the film works pretty well, and stands out as a somewhat underrated classic.

The premise is simple: A questionable real estate office isn’t doing as well as they would like to, and so the boss comes up with a contest to motivate his four salesmen. Earn the most, and you get a new car. Finish second and you get a neat bonus. Finish third and fourth and you get fired. The film takes place over just one night and one morning, so the tension is laid thick. There is a genuine sense of desperation and hopelessness which captures the spirit of the 90s. But what really makes this film stand out is the casting. Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris and Alec Baldwin. It’s a great cast, and everyone does their outmost to make their characters vivid. The stand out performance is Jack Lemmon. His character is pathetic, but has genuine concerns, still living on the memory of better days, and in his worst moment fooling himself into believing that he made a good sale. His character screams of both desperation and poignancy. Alec Baldwin has only one scene, but remains in the back of the audiences heads as he is the one that describes the contest, in a very intimidating scene. Spacey is also great, as the coldhearted manager who has little sympathy for his crew, but he also has some underlying issues of his own. Al Pacino steals every scene he is in with his mesmerizing intensity. It’s not just about the casting though, the script is excellent, and every character has several layers. The film slowly peels away at the characters and in the end everyone is left naked and exposed.

One of the reasons I don’t like “talky” films is that they have a tendency to spell out what the characters are thinking and what’s going on. Glengarry Glen Ross elegantly avoids this; every character has something to hide. The film is smart in quickly telling us what’s at stake, so that the characters and their underlying issues and concerns can be revealed effortlessly. The film also keeps the audience guessing until the end. Most of the film is shown in real time, but there is a clever jump between night and day. During these hours where we, the audience, have not been present there have been some significant story developments, but we were not able to see them. This creates a great moment where we can guess and speculate what happened and who did what, where everything is not what it seems. Although there is a lot of dialogue in the film, everything that the characters say is significant and the film doesn’t seem bloated with dialogue. Indeed, the director managed to create some significance through the visuals, and the cinematography is beautiful, expertly using colors and angles to create meaning. So while the film has a lot of dialogue, it doesn’t always rely on it to tell the story, and thus becomes more interesting. I think this is one of the more successful transitions from theatre to cinema.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Glengarry Glen Ross, but I was captivated throughout the film, with the interesting characters and the fascinating setting. The film builds up well and towards the end is intense, although it is still low-key. Many will talk about the excellent cast, but it’s all about the brilliant script, which they really do justice to. It’s quite incredible how the script gets so much out of so little, and stands as a fine example of intricate screenwriting and filmmaking.

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

Inception is the latest film by Christopher Nolan, the director of the functional and entertaining, though massively overhyped, Dark Knight. And guess what? The hype for Inception almost deafened the initial hype for Dark Knight. Somewhat begrudgingly, I decided that this time I wasn’t going to concern myself as much as I did with Dark Knight, and just try to enjoy the film for what it is. By now we know what kind of films Nolan makes; entertainment films that masquerade themselves as something more important, with a hint of “it’s serious and dark” pretentiousness. The big concern is of course that the average audience doesn’t see through the masquerade, but let’s discuss that later.

So the film is about Leonardo DiCaprio looking moody and serious, which he has been in most of his recent films. Actually, Inception reminded me a lot about Scorsese’s recent Shutter Island, this is the second film in which we are trapped within the mind of DiCaprio, God help us. So DiCaprio makes a living by infiltrating the minds of important people, going into their dreams. But to do this the most effectively he has to go within a dream of the dream, so he has to make the person dreaming within the dream, dream. Enough of that awkwardness. DiCaprio has a dark past, his wife is dead but still haunting him through his dreams, or other people’s dreams, just go with it. He also has two children who he wants to be together with again, but he can’t because he is an outlaw in the US. Then, a rich Asian business man has one final job for DiCaprio and his crew, and as a reward will get rid of all the charges against him in the US (How does the rich Asian business man have so much power over US legislature? I don’t know, he’s rich, so that’s probably a good an explanation as any). However, DiCaprio needs an “architect” who can create dreams, so he hires the girl from Juno, we’ll call her the “Juno Girl” from now on. Him, her, and the A-Team now start to prepare for their final mission, where they have to infiltrate the mind of a rich business owner and implant ideas into his mind about what kind of business model he should use, because this in some way benefits the rich Asian business man. But to do this, they have to go into a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream. Simple enough.

A lot of people have said that this is a very complex film that you have to see at least twice to “get it”. However I don’t agree with this. Each level of the dreams has a very specific look, and there is never any doubt where we are at each time. There are no confusing elements. Everything is set up pretty well for us to understand what is going on and where we are. This might be attributed to the fact that the first hour of the film is exposition, describing the rules of the film universe. The whole long opening is truly boring and tedious, going through the motions of explaining to the audience what is going to happen and how. I would have preferred it if they just handed out pamphlets at the beginning of the film and that could be read as an option. I feel that if you need to go through this much trouble to explain something, then it isn’t worth explaining. The story itself is complicated, and hard to explain, but the film isn’t. Of course it isn’t, because the first hour is spent on exposition. There are also a couple of things that are a bit to quaint. In the mind of the business man they are infiltrating there has been set up a defense against intrusion. This comes in the variety of blank faced machine gun wielding goons, so we get a good opportunity to have loads of shooting scenes. It becomes almost banal at some point. Visually the film does look quite interesting and it opens up for a lot of nice scenes and set pieces, but I still feel that the film missed out somewhat, I never felt like the film was like a dream. When you talk about going into dreams you think of irrationality and crazy things happening, but they don’t in this film, so its representation of dreams is actually quite boring.

One major problem though is that the film is quite funny, most often when it’s not supposed to be. There’s one moment that had me laughing out loud in the cinema, where DiCaprio leans close to the camera and mutters something incomprehensible with the music droning on in the background. What he was saying sounded quite ridiculous, but the film took it so seriously. That’s another thing; this film takes itself way to seriously. But the whole concept is quite silly when one actually thinks about it, and it makes me think that Nolan is something of a manchild. So it’s very funny when the characters talk with the utmost seriousness about what’s going on, when it’s all just very silly. It doesn’t help that the music is ultra serious as well. Apparently, Nolan liked the music from The Dark Knight so much that he just had the composer remix that track, because it is pretty much the same as it was in that film. You might have noticed how I refer to the characters, that’s because they are so blank and empty that they don’t deserve any more. The film lacks any serious characterization, and most of the characters are boring. The only one I found interesting was the business man who they are trying to infiltrate, he’s played by the same guy as Scarecrow from Batman Begins. Otherwise, the characters are just puppets that make things happen on the screen. DiCaprio does an ok job, but it’s just too similar to the roles he has been playing of late, and while his character has issues that might be taken seriously, they are just too cliché. Oh, and of course, at the end Nolan couldn’t resist playing with the idea for the audience whether or not the whole thing was just a dream or if it was real. But at this point I had stopped caring. My problem with Inception, and this goes for The Dark Knight too, is that it’s a standard summer blockbuster film, but it pretends it’s something more. Yes, it’s somewhat smarter and complex than the average blockbuster, and its well made, but at the end of the day it’s just another action film.

I didn’t like Inception. The only remarkable thing about it is how much it’s stuck up its own ass. The film takes itself way to seriously, the emotions within the film are too flat, and overall I found it quite boring. The first hour is mind numbingly boring with all its exposition, and although it picks up after this, I just think “why bother caring anymore?” But the endless drones of faceless goons aren’t that interesting, and sometimes it makes you think that the whole concept for the film was just an excuse to have loads of gunfights. And before anyone says that I’m biased or something because of my expectations, this film let me down. The opening scene was beautifully shot and well paced, it was mysterious and interesting. I thought, “Wow, this might actually be really good”. However after the initial ten minutes the film started letting me down, and in the end I almost forgot about the good opening scene.

Re-Animator (Stuart Gordon, 1985)

Well, what a treat this film was. It’s classic body horror of the 80s to the fullest, with bodily transgression, cheap sexual thrills and lots and lots of gore. It’s the classic tale of a mad scientist who takes his research too far, and jeopardizes the lives of those around him. In many ways it is the modern (or modern in the 80s, anyway) Frankenstein story. However, when it comes to gore, there are few films of the time which were more excessive than this, but the film revels in its gore, and manages to not take itself too seriously. It’s a visceral journey that is meant to be enjoyed, whether you scream or laugh.

One of the good things about the film is that it centers itself on two scientists, instead of one. There’s the mad, socially inept genius Herbert West, then there is the more reasonable but also curious Dan. Both are students, but both, West in particular, are starting to grow past their teachers. It works well because West is so alienating that the audience would have had a hard time sticking up for him. He’s rude, has little conscience, and basically doesn’t care for other people. However, he needs the help of Dan, who is a much more likeable and normal character. Although their very different, they both see the use in West’s study and research. West has designed a formula that can re-animate dead tissue or beings. However, of course it comes with the nasty side effect that anything re-animated goes mad due to the pain of coming back to life, although both characters seem fairly unconcerned about this throughout the film, which I found strange. After all, what’s the purpose of a serum that can bring people back to life if it makes them crazy? Anyway, shit hits the fan before any of the characters can study further into this. One of the professors turns out to be quite an evil and sadistic bastard, and he will do anything to take credit for the serum himself. The Herbert West character becomes more and more fascinating as the film goes on. For a long time the audience cannot be sure of whether or not he is evil or good. Is he really such a jerk, or just a decent guy who is really obsessed about his work and research? Jeffrey Combs who plays West does a good job at playing with these ambiguities, and until the very end of the film we can’t quite be sure where he stands.

The film is famous for its many set-pieces. The film is incredibly playful and creative, creating crazy situations and visuals that are sure to stick in the audiences minds for a long time. The gore is unprecedented, but never really mean or callous in the same way as the recent Saw films. The film just wants to have a good time, and it brings us along. There are many cathartic moments of transgression that are truly joyful, but also moments that makes you want to cringe because they are so uncomfortable. The film is relatively short, and doesn’t have a moment that isn’t interesting, whether it is playing with the ambiguity of West’s character, creating suspense or just creating havoc on the screen with gore. So it’s a very dense film, and it goes a long way to making it re-watchable. That said, the film is not for the weak spirited. Although the film revels in the gore with an almost childlike fascination, if the audience doesn’t like gore then this film won’t change their opinion, actually more likely it would change it for the worse. Safe to say, if you don’t like gory horror films from the 80s, then there is very little on offer from Re-Animator. That being said, Re-Animator is one of the best films of its kind, and I found it immensely enjoyable. It doesn’t have the darkness of The Thing or the sophistication of Alien, but it takes all the great elements from classic gore films and puts it into one film, creating a wonderful mix of a special effects extravaganza and the all out fun of the 80s horror genre.

If you like the classic horror films of the 80s and haven’t seen this, then you need to see it. It’s one of the best of its kind and offers great re-watch value. It also a great film to watch with a bunch of like-minded friends if you want to have a night of laughs, and would work perfectly as a double bill with Evil Dead 2, or indeed the whole trilogy. I’ll definitely check out the sequels to Re-Animator, so maybe I’ll talk about those later.

It (Tommy Lee Wallace, 1990)

I don’t usually review films that I’ve already seen a while ago, but I recently re-watched It, and I want to talk about it. It’s actually not a film, but a TV mini-series running for about 3 hours, but I’ve always seen it as one whole, and it often runs on TV, so I always considered it a film proper. The film was one of my favorites as a kid/teenager, but I hadn’t seen it in about six-seven years. I always found the film fascinating then, and on repeat, I still found it fascinating, so I felt like writing about it.

The thing about It is that, it’s actually a really bad film. The thing is, even back then I knew it was a bad film, but I still loved it. On re-watching the film, I still greatly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it is really poor. What was fascinating was that the film wasn’t any worse than I remembered, so unlike a lot of the films I loved when I was younger, I pretty much feel the same about this film as I always did. As I said, the film is bad, but somehow it manages to overcome that. And it’s not one of those films where you say “it’s so bad it’s good”. When re-watching the film, I think I managed to figure out why it is so enjoyable and entertaining, despite its “badness”. The thing about It is that it contains a lot of different elements, indeed, if you cut out a trailer from it you could make the film seem like a film about nostalgia and childhood. It is indeed about that, but you could easily present the film as if that’s all to it. The film is based on the book with the same title, written by Stephen King, and the story goes as such: A crazy being dressed as a clown terrorizes a small American town by killing innocent children, until seven friends can’t take it anymore and goes on a quest to destroy him. Thirty years on and they’ve all got on with their lives, but It returns, and they have to go back and finish him once and for all. The thing that makes It interesting is that it has so many different elements. At times it seems like a coming-of-age story like Stand by Me, another moment reminded me of kids on an adventure, like the Goonies. Yet the film is a horror, mixing body horror “in-your-face” special effects, and psychological horror. But we also see the kids as grown-ups, and the film deals with mature anxieties, women abuse, suicide and fear of commitment. Wow. So there is a lot to this film, which explains the epic 3 hour length. So why does this mish-mash of a fuckup movie work?

Let’s talk about the horror aspect. At times, it’s not scary, it’s just hilarious. Some scenes are just hammy and bring more laughter than frights. Tim Curry, who plays the evil clown is a good example of this, some of his scenes are comedy gold. Now if you haven’t seen the film you’ve probably heard about how terrifying the clown is. So you’re wondering, why am I calling him hilarious? Well, that’s the thing; he has his terrifying moments, like the opening of the film. There are also genuinely terrifying moments, like when the girl character goes back to her old house. The film goes between the lines of being one of the most frightening films ever, to being like a hilarious b-film. It’s fascinating how the film manages to both succeed and fail. So for all the cheesiness of Tim Curry’s performance, there’s also some underlying terror beneath. The film also manages to delve into some of our most primal fears, so it succeeds on that level too, although that can probably be attributed to the original source material. The coming-of-age material probably also helped this film, as it can be really relatable to young kids, but also adults who can look back on nostalgia. For all the horror in this film, there are also scenes that seem right out of Stand by Me (which of course was also written by King). These moments have no horror in them, and seem perfectly innocent. I think the way the film balances between these moments and the scary stuff really makes the film somewhat unpredictable and variable, and thus quite entertaining. The thing is, unlike Stand by Me, the kids aren’t really great actors, and some scenes where they attempt to emote are just hilarious, particularly the “evil” kid with a slick hairdo who actually genuinely wants to murder the kids, although he is in their class. The adults are only slightly better, but again, the performances are far from good. But I think the emotions sometimes are so strong that they even manage to work, even though the execution is not great.

I haven’t read the book, but my impression is that much of what is actually is good in the film comes from the book, and that despite the cast and crew doing and under-par job with the adaptation, the original source material was so good that it still managed to seep through in the final production. This has of course happened many times before, and usually the product is just a mediocre and boring film. But It avoids that, through its eclectic nature and how epic it can feel. The film defies its own bad qualities through this, and is a truly enjoyable film that I can watch many times and never get bored.

In The Loop (Armando Iannucci, 2009)

Before I start, I have to say I haven’t seen the show In the Thick of it, which this film apparently was somewhat based on, so I have no previous references. Of course, as always, a film should be able to stand on its own and the audience shouldn’t have to know other sources to understand the film itself. Right? Good.

When the film immediately starts it really evoked the feeling that The Office had, however this seems to go away after a little while, like the film became embarrassed or something. However it does also become quite clear that this is nothing like The Office, particularly in its style and “realism”. The film is a parody of government and bureaucracy. And it works quite well. Indeed, I found the film to be very funny, although some might not like this particular type of British humor. The story goes that some people want to invade an unnamed country, while others don’t. One particularly useless British MP indicates on National television that he wishes for war, although he really doesn’t, he’s just extremely inept at expressing himself. Who’s on whose side? No one really knows. Who wants what? Well, no one really know that either, and the ensuing chaos which goes from the streets of London all the way to Washington DC is what most of this films spends its time exploring.

Although the dialogue is occasionally hilarious, I found the film to be quite dialogue heavy. Like someone said on IMDb, it’s an extremely quotable film, but I think it is too much so. There’s only so many times that I find the though British guy who tells people what sort of assorted items he’s going to stick up their ass funny. The characters, one dimensional as they were, are very funny, and work in the way that archetypes work. I particularly liked one sleazy gentleman who worked in Washington, the kind of guy that always promises you that everything will be alright and he’ll sort it out, then stabs you in the back with the knife your own son made in shop class. And he made it as a gift to you! I also liked how the film showed how Americans and the British really feel about each other. Where the Americans just think the British are a little bit silly and non-threatening, while the British admire the Americans in awe in the same way that a child will admire Superman.

But having said all that, I feel that the film is a bit lazy, lazy in that particular way that it lulls its audience back into a comforting state of paralysis where they don’t think about the world in an engaging way. The film parodies the inner workings of government and portrays everyone therein as either a massive idiot or just someone controlled by someone else, who is probably also an idiot. And so we, the audience, sit back in our IKEA sofa, laugh and point, and say “Yes! Everyone in government is really an idiot; it’s a chaotic mess where no one knows what’s going on. Now let’s eat our lasagna before it gets cold.” Obviously the film is heightened reality, a parody, and all of it is really just the most extreme made even a little bit more extreme. But in its doing so, I feel that it doesn’t quite hit close enough to home, it’s funny, but a little too silly. It doesn’t really take a stance, or come close to making people question the inner workings of political government. Obviously there are a lot of traces of the truth in there, I just feel it creates itself a little too much like a parody, and a little too less as a satire.

Still, the film is entertaining, and at times hilarious. It starts off a bit slowly, but as the plot thickens it gets more and more interesting. Worth a watch.

All I Desire (Douglas Sirk, 1953)

This was a weird one, neat though, but I felt that some of the narrative structure was confused, and the film meandered between the poignant and the weak story-plot. Actually, this film doesn’t have any specific outstanding qualities, but still, it isn’t too bad, it’s just good, but not particularly so. It is actually a bit hard to explain, there are a lot of shifting emotions in this film, but it never really worked, truly.

Usually, I bash colour and praise black and white cinematography. But when it comes to Douglas Sirk, I prefer his colour films, because they usually are aesthetically beautiful and the cinematography has some real depth. This film is in black and white, and while the cinematography looks quite good, I do wish this was in colour rather than in black and white, because I know it would have added some great quality to the film. On the story itself, it has a lot of quality and possible depth, but I felt a lot of it was too unexplored. A middle-aged burlesque dance returns to her home town, a little village in the outskirts of America, where she has left her children and husband. Of course, this brings a lot of emotions and her past back to her, and she has to face up to what she escaped from. I was disappointed, because the message of the film seems to be that the small town life is better than the life of the city, which I am a bit opposed to, although the film has its share of criticism on the hypocrisy of these small towns. Of course, it can be read that the film rather says that the most important thing is unity and family, but then again, it is overshadowed and left somewhat open, which I don’t think is the best thing for this film.

The film escapes complexity, which is quite disappointing, but it does remain poignant and is a good case of an early Sirk melodrama. Within this context there is a lot that works in the film, and Sirk manages to get quite a bit of emotions out of the narrative, particularly towards the end of the movie. What I guess I am missing is a bit of that cutting edge such as in All That Heaven Allows, as well as the awesome use of colour that he now is famous for. In many ways, Sirk is very easy to compare to Max Ophüls, much because of their similar background and reasoning for coming to Hollywood. But while Ophüls was a maestro of the moving camera, Douglas Sirk was the master of the colour. Both have wonderful cinematography with depth almost untouchable, but while Ophüls films are absolutely stunning in black and white, this works somewhat against Sirk, and especially in this. You can still tell he is an excellent storyteller from the camerawork that he utilizes here, but it is quite limited and I wish I was rather watching a Sirk film in colour. Still, though, it all works well, and while there seems to be some lacking narrative, the emotions of the characters are well developed and manage to convey exactly what is going on within the characters.

Perhaps not the extravaganza that other Sirk melodrama’s are, this film still works on an emotional level, and one wouldn’t be ill-advised to watch it. However, maybe not the essential Sirk film, and while it was more serious in tone and had more developed themes, I still enjoyed Has Anyone Seen My Gal? quite a bit more.

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (Douglas Sirk, 1952)

Now I’m going to start a run of reviews, six to be exact, on films by Douglas Sirk. I have a box with seven of his films; the only one I had seen was All That Heaven Allows. Recently, I watched all remaining six films within a single day, to say the least, I was hooked. I watched them chronologically; the first one in line was Has Anybody Seen My Gal?

This film is a bit different from the normal films that Sirk made. It is not a melodrama, but rather a light screwball comedy. The usual extravagant cinematography that we usually find in his film is neither present, so a lot of what has made Sirk famous is not featured in this film. So, it isn’t the treat that Sirk usually serves us, but, actually, it is still quite worthwhile watching. It is a very charming little story and enjoyable to watch. What is more, I could sense the early development of Sirk’s own use of self-referential subtext and subtle sarcasm, which is also one of his trademarks. An old man who is rich and bitter and dying, decides to go visit the family of his old flame, who chose to marry someone else over him. Since he has no family, he is contemplating giving them his money when he dies, but he first has to check them out to see if they are worthy, and he does so in secret, saying he is a lodger and living with them. He then sends them a check worth quite a lot of money, but not close to the amount they might receive in inheritance, but substantial enough so he can observe how they react and how they spend the money. And so the narrative goes on from this point.

Essentially, this is a comedy, but it does carry a subtext and message. There are also, actually, some musical numbers, although the film cannot be called a musical. These musical numbers are quite interesting and funny as well. In the first one, teenagers are dancing and singing, as if in a musical. The grumpy old man comes to the scene, and starts complaining about the singing. Although not as strong as in later films, this film does have a specific self-awareness, which is one of the things I like most about the directors Douglas Sirk and Max Ophüls Hollywood output. It does add another level of meaning and deeper context to the films, and they also manage to stay startlingly fresh compared to many other genre films of the times. Still, this film doesn’t emulate that same sense of depth, although it does point towards such moments at various times. There is also the anti-materialistic attitude there that Sirk would come back to later, as well as exploring the life and morals of the upper-class. In of itself, the film is quite enjoyable, the humour is funny and broad, the actors are wonderful, particularly the lead, played very well by Charles Coburn as the aging millionaire. The film doesn’t dwell deeply on its issues, but it does touch upon them, and therefore manages to remain somewhat more interesting than it contemporaries.

A funny and enjoyable film in its own right, this is perhaps not exactly the height of Douglas Sirk, but it did lure me softly into watching the rest of his films, although it didn’t prepare me for the rest. It is perhaps a bit mean to say that this is the worst film I’ve seen by Douglas Sirk, and it is, but it is still very enjoyable and I would say worth a watch. Douglas Sirk shows early signal of some quite interesting subversive directing that few in Hollywood could match, or indeed understand.

To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955)

This one I hadn’t heard much about, which was strange because it is from the period when Hitchcock was at his very best and it stars two of the most famous actors of the time, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Then I watched, and I was still confused, because it actually wasn’t that bad, indeed, it was quite good, and I’m surprised this doesn’t get mentioned more often.

Cary Grant is a retired jewel thief, but when someone starts stealing jewels in the same manner as he used to, and the police suspect him, he has to take action and catch the thief. So it’s the standard wrong man accused story, which, I guess, is nothing special by now, and Hitchcock certainly did it better in North by Northwest. What is a bit unfortunate, though, is that what I remember best about this film is its setting, which isn’t always a good thing. It is set in the South of France during summer, and it does look beautiful indeed. The film is an extravaganza in set and costume design, and I felt that these elements took a bit too much of the spotlight for the film to work strongly as a narrative. It is a fun film to watch though, and while not as clever as most Hitchcock films, it certainly is entertaining. The colour cinematography is beautiful, and the setting puts us right in the mood of the moment, although I did wish I was actually there, rather than watching the film. I did think Cary Grant was a bit unconvincing as the retired jewel thief, I always thought that when he acted in serious films that he was better as a slick guy like in Notorious, rather than some roof climbing burglar. Grace Kelly is at her most beautiful best, and really illuminates the film with her presence. Sadly, it would be her last with Hitchcock.

The film, despite its obvious lack of subtlety or depth, is still a lot of fun, much owing to the humorous tone it keeps throughout the narrative, with a particularly deflating and funny ending line. While Cary Grant isn’t convincing in the role itself, he does have the natural charisma and acting skills to be enjoyable to watch, although it really isn’t a performance to be remembered as his best. Grace Kelly is better, then, putting a lot of energy into her role and generally adding a bit of spice to the film. There are some great cinematic moments, particularly the ecstatic kissing scene between Grace Kelly and Cary Grant during the fireworks. The film is more slick than clever, and it was a big hit in its time, which makes sense to me. It also has a lot of the usual Hitchcock moments and quirks, so it avoids being just another Hollywood film and a quintessential Hitchcock film, although not a particularly strong one. The flair is there, it just isn’t as deep or profound as Hitchcock usually does it. What is good, though, is that the film emulates a sense of enjoyment. While it probably wasn’t his most committed effort, I am pretty damn sure he had a fun time making this film, and I did have a fun time watching it. I am still surprised that it hasn’t received that much recognition amongst the fans, even though it isn’t as good as his best efforts; it is still a good and enjoyable film. Maybe it was just quietly forgotten, I don’t know really.

Not fantastic, but not bad at all. Very enjoyable to watch, and while it might not give me the same amount of excitation as I usually get from watching Hitchcock films, it still managed to keep me interested, and the beautiful setting, as well as Grace Kelly, kept me interested and intrigued throughout the course of the narrative.

Stalag 17 (Billy Wilder, 1953)

Stalag 17 is another film by Billy Wilder which was made just two years after Ace in the Hole. Strangely, though, the film has a vastly different feel and atmosphere to it than Ace in the Hole. It is on a much lighter note, and can be billed almost as a comedy. This actually is quite perplexing, as this film is set in a Nazi POW camp during the Second World War. But hey, this is another genius stroke from Wilder, as the film mixes dark drama with light humour to great effect, and creates a film that is visually intriguing and always keeps the audience interested in the story.

The film follows a group of sergeants who live together in a barracks in the POW camp. They always attempt to scheme their way out of the camp, but whatever they try, the German guards are always a step ahead, thwarting all of their attempts. So, of course, they realize that someone amidst their group has to be selling the information to the Germans. The man everyone suspects is the cynical loner J.J. Sefton, played by William Holden with gusto. While the narrative then unfolds with this as its pretext, there is a lot more to this film than just the narrative. It is also a slice of life of the prisoners, and this area of the film is the comedy part. The interaction between the prisoners and the Germans are priceless, especially the way they know each other exactly. The Germans know that the Americans are trying to escape, and the Americans openly admit so, and in a way it becomes a compromise between the two factions. One of the best things about Billy Wilder films is how they blend humour and drama. I thought this worked at its very best in The Apartment, but it works very well here also. The comedy is a bit broader, and the contrast is a bit stronger, but it still works wonders, my favourite parts where the Sergeant nicknamed Animal’s obsession with Betty Grable throughout the film.

I thing the humour has a very important role in this film. The prisoners are constantly depressed about their situation and the meagre living conditions, but the humour keeps the spirit up, otherwise the film might have been too dark. So, in many ways, the film offers some of the best from two different worlds: wonderful broad humour and some wonderful visual storytelling when the William Holden character tries to find out who the traitor is. The films’ ending is also properly thrilling and satisfying. William Holden is great as the cynical outsider, trying to do the best with the situation he is stuck in. Like the films tone, the cinematography drifts between the light and the gritty, and some of the shots of William Holden contemplating look great, capturing his isolated nature perfectly and creating a sense of paranoia around him. Some might suggest that the mixture of World War Two and broad humour might be a tad bit tacky, but I don’t think so. It is simply a working-through, a way to handle the situation they are in psychologically. The film also handles it subject with a sense of grace and the respect it deserves, so it avoids just being stupid, a trap too many films fall into, especially today (e.g. Saving Private Ryan). But what this film has, which is featured in the best of Wilder’s films, is a penetrating gaze at the human subject and condition, vindicating our very nature and yet having a laugh at it.

Great film, again, from Billy Wilder. Not his best, but that is quite hard to achieve, and this stands as a wonderful classic of that great age of cinema. The casting is almost always perfect in Wilder films, and this is no different, with special remarks to William Holden’s performance, as well as the visual narrative parts and the slapstick parts. Wonderful experience.

Ace in the Hole (Billy Wilder, 1951)

Billy Wilder is perhaps one of the very best classic Hollywood directors, known for his stylistic dialogue and clever plots. His films are also darker than the usual thing you’ll find in Hollywood, particularly his film Sunset Blvd. I discovered this film when I found out that it was available as a criterion release, and even though I didn’t know much about it, I had to have it. It also stars one of my favourite actors of the era, Kirk Douglas, who I recently saw in Out of the Past and he was brilliant in Paths of Glory.

In this film, Kirk Douglas plays a reporter who is on the low point of his career, and seeks a job as a writer for a small newspaper in a town in the outskirts. Hoping to get his breaking story, he idly waits for it at his new job. A whole year goes by, with nothing spectacular happening and nothing relevant to report, he starts to grow frustrated. One day, on a mission for the newspaper, he comes by an old mine where a man is trapped deep down. He sees an opportunity for a human interests scoop, and quickly starts capitalizing on the emotions of the reader, and starts the rescue of the man. The rest of the film details how the protagonist, Tatum, covers the story and his control of all the events surrounding it. I think this film is perhaps Kirk Douglas’ best performance, even better than in Paths of Glory. He is a cynical business man type, who knows everything about the workings of news and how to utilize the media to its fullest. This is also, actually, one of Billy Wilder’s best efforts, the black and white cinematography of the barren desert is fantastic, and the way he continues to drive the narrative forward is excellent. But also, the film is very different from anything I have seen from Hollywood, it stands as a strong contrast to the classic story, and takes its own unique path, something that makes it one of the films of the time that stands out.

The film is a scathing indictment of the media and its potential to trick people and capitalize on their emotions. For its time, it is truly innovative, and it is kind of scary to see that it actually is worse today than before. The place where the man gets trapped becomes a tourist attraction, and Tatum’s handling of the situation is as brilliant as it is frightening. As the tourist attraction grows, the circus also comes, and it creates a great symbol for the media and the press. This is probably Billy Wilder’s darkest and most negative film, showing the greed of Tatum manifest itself in the community and people that he influences. Particularly the wife of the guy stuck in the mine is a very negative character, and unlike most Hollywood films of the time, here there is no redemption. There is a bit of subtle humour in there as well, and the film does work as a comedy in much the same manner as say Dr. Strangelove, but this is actually darker and more sinister. It is a film that is angry, and it sneers at humanity, as well as aptly point out our mistakes and foils. That is why, for me, the film left a strong emotional impact, and stands above most of Hollywood of the time. Its intelligence, the wry and sharp script, and the great performance by Kirk Douglas makes this film stand a whole bunch above the rest of the crop.

One of the finest by Billy Wilder, this might though not be for everyone’s tastes as it is a much more dark and sarcastic film than most from the time, and people who just want to be nostalgic or have a good laugh with a Hollywood classic might not like this film for its grittiness. However, I can do nothing but heap praise on this film, as it stands out as one of the finest of its time period, and in fact, it hasn’t aged in the slightest.

Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947)

This is it, the classic of classics, one of the defining films of the noir genre, Out of the Past brought Robert Mitchum to fame and brought about the noir genre, dark thrillers where people smoked ridiculous amounts of cigarettes and the femme fatale characters started to come to fruition. Out of the Past doesn’t disappoint as a classic, and reeks wonderfully of dark atmosphere, complicated plot and cynicism.

The film has the archetypal protagonist, a tough talking who is in trouble of some sorts, as well as the two love interests, the nice blonde girl and the femme fatale. Although I haven’t seen any films with Robert Mitchum before, his fame preceded him and I knew quite a bit about him before I saw this. He is, of course, perfect for the role, and helps create the atmosphere of the film. But my favourite character, though, is the villain, played by Kirk Douglas. He is perfect as the sly gentleman like villain who seems as if he will stop at nothing, and while he doesn’t really do much himself, one can always feel his pressing invisible presence, and creates a great role of paranoia and fear. The gritty cinematography is iconic, and it creates a very dense atmosphere that shows the viewer the situation that the character is in. While the protagonist is no saint, he is still very much a character one can identify with, or rather, warm to. This is one of my favourite aspects of the noir genre, because the heroes are usually anti-heroes, and therefore creates an interesting conflict into the persona of the character, very different from the normal Hollywood film of the time. These films explore more deeply the darker side of human nature, and in many ways are more interesting for their somewhat different character development, which rockets their characters through some though struggles.

The ending of the film is also great, and the whole film truly spends a lot of time exploring Mitchum’s character. The ending brings it all together and consolidates his character within a frame, giving us the whole picture of what he and the film were about. I usually find noir films very satisfying to watch, and this was no different. I do love the noir genre, and it therefore becomes quite hard to criticize it. Because Out of the Past is the archetype for noir film, it is really hard to criticize it without criticizing the noir genre. In this way, one could say that Out of the Past is the perfect noir, for better or worse. I might be quite biased here, because of my interest in the noir genre; I also love the look 40’s, which creates a certain nostalgic feeling in me. Not that I ever lived in the 40’s, but I still yearn to, everything about that era is amazing. Well, except the war an all that... Anyway, I’ve seen quite a few noir films, but I think this might be the most impressive of them all, because of the great atmosphere, the plot, and of course the great performances from Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. The mix of the innocent town setting and the dark cityscape is also very intriguing, and creates some very nice contrasts, which has big significance on the characters psyche.

If you want to get into noir, this is perhaps the essential place to start. Everything about this film screams style and class, and it is an archetype for what the noir genre would become known for, particularly the femme fatale character is great, and adds a lot of conflicting emotions in the protagonist. Also see it for Kirk Douglas’ performance.

Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra, 1944)

So, after two fairly disappointing outputs by Capra, I watched this comedy classic, and what a laugh it turned out to be. It is based on a famous play by the same name, but I wasn’t familiar with the story, so I didn’t know what I was in for. Safe to say, this was probably one of the sharpest and funniest comedies I have seen from Capra or classic Hollywood even.

So, I’m not going to bother with spoiling too much of the story, as it is quite a joy to watch unfold and therefore I could ruin anyone’s potential viewing of the film. The protagonist is Cary Grant, and he is hilarious in this. The film uses a lot of physical and slapstick humour, and this works well with Cary Grant’s range, which allows him to go to ridiculous lengths to be funny, but never enough over the top to make it idiotic, and that’s quite a skill. The whole cast is great, though, and especially Peter Lorre is fantastically funny in this, with his thin creepy voice. Now, I’ve talked a lot about the depth in Capra films, and well, this film doesn’t really have much of that. But it makes up for it with the superb wit and sharpness in humour. It’s just a very enjoyable film, and takes full advantage of the script to superb effect. Incidentally, because the film is based on a play, there is only one location, really, and despite this, the film never really gets boring, but constantly keeps itself fresh with the development of the narrative. The film takes most use of cinematography as possible, and the black and white is crisp and beautiful, so the film is also a visual treat, which is important considering much of the visual humour. Don’t get me wrong, though, there isn’t just visual humour, the script and dialogue is great and hilarious as well.

From a pure directing point of view, this is perhaps Capra’s most impressive output, his directing is so consistent and spot-on it at times feels as if he was born to make this film. There is particularly one scene which lasts for quite a long while on just a wide shot, and this was one of the most memorable moments in the films, and that requires quite a bit of skill, as if there was any doubt that Capra lacked this. He captures the frantic moments with gusto, and the silent moments are filled with extreme tension. What I loved most about this film, though, was the absolutely unique sardonic black humour, of which I don’t think I have seen the likes of in Hollywood films, and the closest example is probably Dr. Strangelove. Obviously, this is much due to the original material, but it is excellently translated to the screen here. It is really not that easy to successfully adapt plays to cinema, and I have seen many bad examples, but this is probably the single best example of a completely successful translation of the original material into another medium. Really, everything works very well in this film, and it is a joy from start to finish. Yeah, it doesn’t have the depth or subtlety of some of the other Capra films, but it is his most enjoyable film that I’ve seen, and it is a great example of his great directing.

While not a film I would consider among Capra’s best, it is still a pretty damn good film, and the humour is great, supported by the funny interpretation of the roles and actions by the cast. A wonder to behold, Capra’s sense of direction is fantastic, and a great exercise in how to successfully direct a pure comedy.